September 29, 2012

This is a he-who-smelt-it-dealt-it argument. Or, as Stephen Colbert's persona likes to say, "I don't see race." This line of argument wants to change the subject to something, anything other than race. Hey, what about free phones?! Patterico at Patterico's Pontifications tried defending the video, saying, "The above video is hilarious. It is representative of a group of Obama voters who feel entitled to handouts from government. It does not matter what the color of the speaker is. It’s news... Conservatives should not have to shy away from such amusing examples of entitlement mentality simply because the particular proponent of that mentality happens to be black." This is intellectually dishonest, at best. We await Patterico delving into the minutiae of the Universal Service Fund. Until then, it's just "hilarious." Specifically, it's hilarious because it uses one person to portray a huge group of people in a negative way is. The point of the video -- and the reason Drudge and Limbaugh hyped it -- is to say, this is what Obama voters look like: black, poor, stupid, and after your money. The video's subject wasn't picked out because she "happens to be black," she was picked out because she is black. Lee Atwater, strategist for Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, explained how this works way back in 1981 -- better to talk about cutting taxes and bussing, because it's "a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Ni***r, ni***r.'" Of course, this Internet meme isn't all that abstract.

If it's insufficiently abstract, it won't work. Our conscious anti-racism filters may keep the material from reaching us. In fact, as I said in my post yesterday, what I feel happening to me emotionally — and what I'm guessing may happen to other middle-of-the-road types like me — is repulsion away from the Romney side. It's not Romney's fault, he can't control what his supporters say in their efforts to promote him, but he needs to be a more dominant figure in his own campaign. Voters need to associate him with a clear and compelling message that doesn't feel connected to this racial material coming from other sources.

However, we've got a trillion dollar deficit, a 16 trillion dollar debt, a disastrous health care policy put in place by a group who could not be troubled to read it, a foreign policy based solely upon the cult of personality of a weak figure, a completely failed domestic economic policy and a president who fails to understand how an economy works.

Those are the issues. If you think this election is about race, you're not going to vote for Romney.

Please don't let this mess from this week turn this site into LGF. The woman in the video was reprehensible; some people may or may not generalize that reprehensible state to a broader subset of people than is justified. The end. Can we move on now?

You are bringing Romney into this all over again. It is despicable. How is Romney attached to any of this? There are people who vote for Romney. He is not responsible for all their actions. STOP IT NOW. IF there was a big media mouthpiece to exaggerate what Romney said and what his message is, if there were big media lapdogs hiding his 'gaffes' and if there were big media whores feeling the tingle on their legs with their drooling mouths everytime he spoke, you might then feel he is a dominant figure in his own campaign. Just the opposite is happening. How much responsibility do you attribute to the fucking media in this regard? It is not all Romney's problem.

Just curious, are you willing to "punish" Rush (for being generally loathsome - which he is) *half as much* as you are willing to bring the hammer down on Romney for something that is admittedly out of his control?

This whole set of threads is so, so stupid - stupid and bizarre. I'm with Palladian. I'm out until after sweeps.

Voters need to associate him with clear and compelling message that doesn't feel connected to this racial material coming from other sources.

You mean like all of the racial divisiveness coming from Obama himself (the racist in chief)and from his sycophants crying racism at every utterance. Saying "Chicago" is racist. Saying "golf" is racist. "Devil's Food Cake" is racist.

Shit. If everything is racist then nothing is. If you want to accuse me of racism....fine.....I'll take it up then.

meh, we all know the ones who scream racist are indeed the racists, but why do we care so much about race when it is character that should be at the heart of any discussion on the foibles of man. Race politics and all that goes with it is nothing more than an insidious method to conflate the idea that those who are accused of it remain as guilty as possible so they can always remain the foil for why the accusers are and will always be perpetual victims. Democrats are the masters of this device.

The point of the Limbaugh video is that the woman is a taker, not that she's black. What if Limbaugh had played a video of a taker who was white? There would have been no cries of racism. But the video that was available to him to show the taker mentality happened to be of a black woman. So he played it. Was he not supposed to play it because of the inevitable chorus of "Racisss?" That would have been surrendering in advance to the blatantly obvious leftist strategy of using the R word to shut up any opposition to the taking that has the country down on its knees.

I wonder, though, whether you're overestimating how typical you are. A (1) Madison, WI-based law intellectual who (2) listens to Rush and is an experienced participant in the right-wing blogosphere, but (3) and is (allegedly) on the fence about who to vote for. How many people fit two of those descriptions, let alone all three?

It is pathetic that the conservative movement is as clueless about what Ann is pointing to as it is, especially at such an opportune moment. It may be Romney will still pull it off given how utterly Obama has failed. Nevertheless, incidents like this tell me Republicans do not have an alternative at all. The real recipients of welfare state assistance are as likely to be white, middle class Tea Partiers as they are to be black and poor.

Several years back, the late great Jeff McNelly had a truly classic cartoon. It showed a big beefy white guy up on the shoulders of a figure labeled "government." From that perch, the beefy white guy leans over to tell the "government" to "get off my back."

Romney should wake up every day with that cartoon in front of him. He has as much to do educating his own followers - base and establishment together, Rush especially included - as himself and all Democrats. We are the entitlement state, all of us. And we had better figure out a better way that does not abandon the true poor especially, who most need real help.

Since the late 1960s, NEITHER the Democrats nor Republicans have had a thing to offer the vulnerable blue collar working class. Hence that class is in play, shuttling back and forth between parties, never getting a thing from either. If Republican conservatives ever want to win a true majority position in America, they will have to learn to understand the real class structure in this nation and stop the endless, and sterile, mantra of no new taxes, cut government to the bone, and celebrate the joys of entrepreneurship. These do not address the crisis of the entitlement state or the anxieties of those most caught in its contradictions. Not one bit.

I'm not entirely sure what Ann wants Romney to do in this case, if anything at all actually.

Should he come out and denounce people playing this video? Seems to me that could easily be interpreted by people who are "sensitive to this kind of racial ugliness" as an admission that the Republican party is nothing but a bunch of racists, and I'm sure the Obama campaign and the mainstream media will helpfully encourage that conclusion.

At the end of the day if you're thinking of not voting for Romney based on some racial sensitivity to a videoclip played by Rush, and instead voting for the guy who sat in Reverend Wright's church for decades, it feels to me that you're simply looking for an excuse to vote for Obama.

It's not about race, it's about misdirection. Consider a couple of quotes off Insta this morning; one form Sarah Hoyt, another of Insta's fave blogresses (gasp he's got an Internet harem!); the other from Mickey Kaus:

Am I crazy or is today’s NBC Nightly News broadcast actually almost fair in Obama vs. Romney terms? … The network isn’t exactly harsh on Obama regarding the highly suspicious intelligence-agency blame-taking on Libya misdirection–-but Andrea Mitchell does offer only two alternatives: 1) “a coverup” 2) “trying to avoid acknowledging mistakes this close to an election.” … Is MSM Guilt finally kicking in? (Thanks, Howard Fineman!). Or was whoever’s in charge of skewing the coverage (maybe his name is Brian) just off for the night?

Obama’s economic fatalism — I’ve seen this among my lefty acquaintances. They assume decay is inevitable. I think it comes from economic illiteracy and first-world-guilt (which in turn comes from not knowing that wealth can be created, so more economic illiteracy). Couple that with Obama’s world-bestriding ego, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Could be all those polls are looking the way they are because people are wising up.

Mark Belling (Milwaukee talk radio) has been talking quite a bit this year about how these elections come down to the emotional five percent in the middle.

He classifies them as people who are very wishy washy with no core belief system on anything. This group is subject to whatever emotion drives them at the moment and they are the ones who will decide the election depending on how they are "feeling" that day or week.

But I would suppose Althouse would say that this video will push some of that wishy washy middle to Romney just as she claims the video is pushing her to Obama.

I guess I don't see race here as much as I see Moocher society taking us all down with them.

Are you demented? Romney has nothing to do with this video or the backlash against the welfare leeches who are sucking the life blood from us.

The fact that this crackhead woman wanting free phones is black is not necessarily the problem. There are many white welfare entitlement slugs too.

Romney cannot control what other people think. There ARE racists in this country. No doubt. Many of them are black as well as white.

All Romney can do is speak the truth. 47% of the public doesn't pay any Income Taxes. Truth. Entitlement mentality is out of control. TRUTH. There is a large segment of the population who have been taught that they should consider themselves victims and who will never EVER take responsibility for their lives. TRUTH ELEVENTY!!! There is nothing racial about stating the freaking truth.

Your trying to tie him to this is just another aspect of you trying to justify to yourself voting for Obama ......again.

Mead may have rubbed some conservative off onto your soul, but deep down you are a still liberal progressive and people like YOU are to blame for our situation.

When I first watched the video, what struck me is this woman’s illiterate anger. She is toothless and unable to string basic sentences together. She is poor. Shouldn't we pity her? Shouldn't we want to give her a free tax payer funded phone? It's not so much the free phone, is it?She is also angry.-- Angry about this idea that someone might take away her Obama.Also, it reminded me of our education system. She is a reflection and reminder that for many, it's a real mess. That is a disgrace in modern America. I blame the corrupt teacher's union. I really do. What would Bill Cosby have to say about this woman?That's how it struck me.

I think tax payers are fed up. This is just one more thing. We are tired of paying for tax payer funded this and tax payer funded that. The whole escalating madness is driving down the middle class and killing the private sector. We need to celebrate the private sector and make it vibrant so that we can have free phone programs.

I don't care who Althouse votes for. I don't care because I believe the American people are sick and tired of being called racists even after electing a black president, I believe they are ready to move on with another president. And oh Yeah, that electing a black president really helped move us beyond our racist history didn't it.

Well, it's certainly good to know that you mushy people in the middle aren't emotionally effected by pictures of our ambassador's dead body being dragged through the streets of Benghazi while the guy who was responsible for his safety jets to Vegas for a fund raiser because it explains a lot about how people can vote for Obama after failing to keep even one single major promise of his 2008 campaign (close Gitmo, restore America's standing in the Middle East, cut the deficit in half, have unemployment down to 5.6%) -- nothing Obama does in his official capacity as POTUS evokes negative emotional responses for people like you, but things radio talk show hosts (who aren't the candidate) most certainly do evoke those responses, but only against Obama's opponent. As I wrote last night: your argument is not based on "emotion" to any alleged racism by Rush Limbaugh; what you are doing is what psychologists call rationalization and everyone else calls "making excuses."

I was going to look to see what your reaction to Obama's "I don't look like other presidents" comment was or highlight the absurd claims of racism put out there by Obama supporters but this topic has become a bit too ridiculous.

This subject has already devolved into talk about subconscious racism, with all the accusations, mobies, and psycho-babble bullshit that accompany the topic.

Anyway I'll be back Monday, and hopefully this will be out of your system by then.

Unfortunately there's an unsettling common ground between interpreting Rush's critique of a corrupt voter as racist and feminism. Both mindsets, no let's call them instead weltanschauungen, share a fundamental cognitive dissonance factor which is projected on the observed by the observer -- i.e. both hold x to be simultaneously true and false depending on who says it, in effect a Schrodinger's cat.

Mia Love, running to become the first black woman in Congress (house) said this on Huckabee (paraphrasing) -- you measure the success of a govt by looking at how few people need the safety net. Romney repeated that same statement in a different form on the stump speech. If the fucking media was fair, they would have highlighted it and made it his dominant message.

If you can keep your head when all about youAre losing theirs and blaming it on you,If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,But make allowance for their doubting too;If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,Or being hated, don't give way to hating,And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. --Christopher Hitchens

I see nothing that suggests that there is racism behind the showing of a video of a woman who likes Obama because he gave her a cell phone. You're wildly guessing, and I don't find that particularly compelling.

Althouse, you're being ridiculous and you should re-think things and apologize for your ridiculousness.1. Above all, what you really seem to be saying is that you, Ann Althouse, "whose rational mind[s] would reject explicit racial material can be emotionally manipulated." You dislike confronting the reality that you see a black person doing something stupid and ugly, your response is to be disusted at yourself for drawing an emotional and racist image in your mind, and you then overcompensate by lashing out at the people showing the imagine.You're giving the lie to your excellent free speech arguments from a couple weeks back. There, you rightly pointed out that freedom was an absolute, and it was ultimately the goal of free speech to allow the listener the freedom to here and decide. You’re failing hard, and ultimately saying you think some things are just too emotional for people to listen and handle. Yuck.2. You’re trying to make some distinction that it's "OK" to show the video, but "not ok" to show it too much, and yet you approvingly linked to someone saying it was basically "not ok" to show it or think about it.There's no distinction to be made. It's a fact that that particular black person said those particular things, and it's entirely reasonable to talk about it. Period. End of story.

Also, Yes, the video obviously has a racial component and stirs racial fears, but how can such things ever be dealt with unless we think them through and discuss them?

That's always seemed the absurdity to me of the liberal mindset that anything negative has to be ignored and it'll just end up going away. That we'll somehow have a racism free society by ignoring every stupid thing that people do.

No. We aren't going to eliminate racism by pretending it doesn't exist and pretending there aren't different views among different racial groups, and that these views are all compatible with each other.

It's not really a matter of race, it's a matter of culture. I'm disgusted by the mentality that particular black person shows, and from my teaching days, I know it's a mentality that's prevalent among many poor black people. On the other hand, I've met lots of poor black people that work their asses off. In any case, my point is that there's a racial and/or cultural component to this thing that should be addressed and understood.

Calling divergent views racism, or calling someone racist for holding views about the attitudes of people, rather than their inherent capabilities, strikes me as a huge disservice to the cause of eliminating true racism and racial animosity in general.

Simply put, the guy (Car) you (Althouse) quote as saying you should be scared to go into a city is right. But I don't take what he says as racism in a meaningful sense of the word.

That is, he doesn't sound happy about it. He seems to be recognizing reality as he sees it. Which is necessary, because we'd be better off in a better reality, in which a significant sub-culture within the American black population wasn't lawless, hopeless, dangerous and dependent on the rest of us.

The important questions are why and who's really hurt by this reality. Well, the why is that the sort of "that's racist! You can't say that!" nonsense that Althouse is pushing, coupled with big government "help" for the "poor unfortunates" is exactly what's created and kept so many as "poor unfortunates".

And the "who is really hurt" answer is the real kicker. Besides the "poor unfortunates" themselves, the people that seem to be most hurt are the vast majority of black people, who do work hard, want to succeed, and want to better themselves.

That is, the people that are really getting screwed are black people. And my guess is that the vast majority of folks you're calling or insinuating as racist ultimately really want those black people to be better off.

I know I would like them to have better, safer, richer, more successful and happier lives. Because of that, there's no way on earth I'm voting for Obama, a guy who's pushing dependence and creating economic chaos on a massive scale.

Althouse, are you worshipping the welfare state? Is this video blasphemy? Are we mocking your liberal attempts to help the poor?

Do you think welfare helps the poor? Do you think more and more welfare, including free phones, is a good idea? Should we call them the Obama phone? Is any of this objectionable?

Why the obsessive focus on the video? (I know, I know. Race!) But why not focus on the utter failure of liberal economics and how it has destroyed marriage among African-Americans, and sunk so many of them into a permanenent underclass?

Why is this poor, begging woman so angry? Isn't it weird to be begging for a handout and simultaneously confrontational, belligerant and resentful? And you're going to join her and be "resentful" against "the Romney side"?

You feel the urge to stand with her and yell at the cameraman?

Why? Will that help her, or her economic situation?

Does class warfare actually help the poor, in your opinion? Do the people on welfare need more welfare? And why do you think Obama wants to name government programs after himself? Is there a problem with that?

and what I'm guessing may happen to other middle-of-the-road types like me — is repulsion away from the Romney side. ...he needs to be a more dominant figure in his own campaign.

I think I'm most bothered by the Althouse implication that Indies are unable to get past their emotional reactions, valid or not, and make judgments based on the rather critical issues that now face us. Yeah, we all work with or on emotional response. Sometimes, though, we manage to get over them and do the right thing.

No doubt a'barge. We are the BROKEST nation evah and it doesn't matter. Rush said nothing racist, he just played the audio of this a video TOO MANY times. Btw, how many is racist and how many is not racist? AA needs to define that for us.

Ann, this is well into "completely absurd" territory. This train of posts only even qualifies as coherent if your intention is to push Romney into taking a more authoritative stand against racism from his supporters, but even then we'd have to assume you've forgotten everything *you've* written about media bias over the last few months. If Romney did make a seminal speech decrying racism being used against Obama, do you believe for a second he wouldn't be utterly savaged for the admission that some part of his supporters are motivated by racism?

And that's before we even get into the simply insane double-standard at play here. How many posts have you yourself written about racebaiting in the Obama campaign? Did you have a similar reaction to the initial wave of tea parties, where every single vaguely racist sign was photographed and posted online, backed by vigorous effort to smear anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders as a racist?

Considering what you've written over the last year+ that I've read, this is either a completely botched effort at tough love, or the saddest possible excuse to turn into a single-issue voter so you can still vote for Obama. And after all that effort to build credibility as an independent.

These posts have just been far below your normal standard for thoughtfulness and cutting through bullshit.

What about the video from 08 that showed a black woman at an Obama rally stating she was going to vote for him because he was going to buy her stuff? Was that racist too? Just for having been recorded by a local news camera?

Totally off-topic but I have wanted to say for some time that I'm impressed with commentary, and particularly the inclusion of "Barry Lyndon" high up in your list of movie favorites. It's too bad that fine film is so under-appreciated. (Actually I'm trying to hijack this thread onto a more stimulating topic. Pondering Althouse's forlorn effort to make sense of last night's nonsense is depressing.)

I've already called Ann's critics here "clueless" and explained even earlier why. Let me be more blunt. Every single one of you complaining here is as big if not a bigger leech and parasite of the welfare state as that black woman with her cell phone. So is Rush, for that matter. I include myself. The self-righteous hypocrisy of you all is one of the most disgusting displays I have ever witnessed on this site. It is not merely that you are hypocrites, however. It is also a sign you do not really understand honestly the nature of the political crisis through which we are living and do not have a thing to offer in the way of a way out.

Back before the 2008 election, we all remember the woman (she happened to be black) (sorry I must be a racist for pointing it out) who was filmed praising Obama because she was certain Obama was going to buy her things. (what was it? free gas, a free home? something big....)

The ObamaPhone is a promise kept. See look - Obama did buy her things. He didn't use his money, but that's ok.

These posts have just been far below your normal standard for thoughtfulness and cutting through bullshit.

Only on subjects other than race. This particular bit of damnfoolishness doesn't even match up to the "How do I know you libertarians aren't racist?" incident. And of course no one's ever going to top the "Nig" Pajamas.

Yes, Paul, that is exactly right. And a failure to be honest about it is why conservatives are not getting traction.

The 47% comment was of a piece with this discussion here. It was factually incorrect and morally obtuse. Romney should have disowned it forcefully, but then gone on to a correct statement of the way the entitlement state is undermining us and corrupting us all. Neither the left nor the right has a clue how to talk honestly about this.

"and what I'm guessing may happen to other middle-of-the-road types like me — is repulsion away from the Romney side. ...he needs to be a more dominant figure in his own campaign."

Ann. I call BS. This is similar to the 'Romney has cooties' trick the media is trying to pull.

Romney has nothing to do with this video, has no control over Rush and what he does.

If you blame Romney for this, do you blame Obama for every repulsive thing Jermiah Wright has said? There's a better case for Wright because Obama is known to associate with him.

Rush playing this video was not a part of Romney's campaign. You might as well be asking him to control the weather.

I'm not sure where you're headed with this, or why you're doubling down on it, but the weak 'racism' charge is the same kind of stuff that liberal operatives have been hurling at everyone that dares to disagree with Obama.

The charge is losing its power. As well it should.

Look at what you've said.

A video of a woman using her own words to describe her dependency upon the gov't for a cell phone, and other things, somehow becomes racist if it's played repeatedly by Rush Limbaugh.

Somehow this racism-by-video repetition has a penumbra that creates guilt in Romney because he hasn't lead his own campaign enough?

The thing is, how would you know if Romney was leading his campaign enough. They only time we hear about the Romney campaign from the media is if they think they can twist something he said or did into a gaffe.

If Mitt was aware of what Rush did (doubtful), got that it could be perceived as racist (maybe) and thought it was his job to respond to it (is it? really?) then if he did say something condemning it, would it change you mind?

The media would have quite a dilemma. Do they show Mitt condemning Rush, which would fill them with glee, and risk they might make Mitt look good for a moment? What to do? What to do?

Otherwise this all just guilt by association. Weak tea for a law prof.

Maybe it's just a way for you to purge some of the conservatives from your blog by taking such an illogical stance.

“In fact, as I said in my post yesterday, what I feel happening to me emotionally…is repulsion away from the Romney side.”

Curious that you seem to want to find an excuse to vote for Obama. I decided some time ago that the President’s initial disregard and subsequent mishandling of the economy would lose my vote. All of these other distractions, such as this video, are just bumps-in-the-road (to coin a phrase).

Althouse is being pushed away from Romney because of a video he had absolutely nothing to do with.

Althouse is not driven by prospective policy. Or national security issues. Or ideology. Or anything rational.

No, the top graduate of one of the most prestigious law schools in the country may decide to vote for Obama because a screeching woman wanted to be recorded urging people to vote for Obama because she believes he gave her a phone.

Okay Rialbi, I will answer. Are you telling me you work in an industry that does not benefit from any subsidy or tax break? Are you telling me neither you nor any dependent on you in any way depends on any government entitlement program now headed for unsustainability, such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc.? Or will be depending on it at some point? Are you telling me you do not deduct for interest on a home mortgage or have a government backed loan of any sort? Etc. Etc. The greatest share by far of unsustainable entitlement support goes to the middle class. Maybe you live off the land. Otherwise, I say you are a leech, along with me and everyone else here and ought to get off your high horse about it.

I am sure the AAUP still considers itself a professional association and not a trade union, but that could change.I can remember when NEA was that way, and it came to a sudden end when Al Shanker got the AFT going and began cutting into NEA's membership dues.

Now, imagine the country "going over the cliff" next year, and the universities budgets get cut, so they cut staff and teaching positions, etc., and the AAUP finds that they are indeed a union after all and call their members, including Prof. Althouse, out for demonstrations.Then Althouse finds herself confronted by a reporter, maybe even Jesse Watters, in the rain, and how does she respond?

So a woman takes the time out of her schedule to protest Romney because Obama gave her a phone. All that matters to her is she got a phone, and none of the issues facing our nation are important enough for her to bring up. Someone notes that shallow mindset is representative of the vocal support for Obama.

Althouse: "She's black, and you are all racists if you refuse to see that she is black!"

So much for the intellectual conversation the host once tried to promote.

Althouse has to know that she is on the wrong side when she is being defended by shiloh.

Not really defending Althouse, whereas I do agree Limbaugh is a compulsive racist!

Althouse is infatuated, no pun intended, by Limbaugh, so she only sees "occasional" ;) Limbaugh racism.

The poor little weasel! After months of bad-mouthing Ann, now he has to twist himself into a pretzel to praise her - even just a little.

lol, as they say.

*( K) ") :U

But, to perhaps give more clarity to why Ms Reeve wrote her piece in the first place Consider a provocative piece with this quote highlighted by Insta:

Introducing The New Polling Firm of Madoff, Marist, Quinnipiac and Ponzi:

The data on absentees and registration point to a fall off in enthusiasm for the president from the highs of 2008, a result both of his epic failures as president and of the fact that the second time around isn’t nearly as exciting as casting a vote for the first ever African-American president.

The conversations with the experts are the most revealing, however, and the Manhattan-Beltway media elite has really failed to do even minimal homework here, choosing instead to go with the conclusions of the people they have paid to give them data, thus outsourcing their work.

In this respect big media resembles nothing so much as investors in Bernie Madoff’s funds. Madoff never got asked tough questions by his investors or the SEC, and thus he rampaged through his clients’ cash.

Big news organizations that turn off their skepticism and write checks to polling firms are doing the same thing and for the same reason: They lack the skills to do their own analyses, and they don’t want to be thought stupid for asking obvious questions.

I don’t mind admitting I don’t know why a sample should include 10% more Democrats than Republicans, so I ask –and ask and ask. This is what journalists do. Unless, apparently, they have paid for the product or want badly to believe it is true.

As I say, this has more to do with Libya and the tanking economy than race.

Thanks for your literary advice. But as to the "you didn't build that" line that little bit of sound bite mindlessness is exactly the problem. Obama was wrong in saying it, and the right was wrong in denying, equally. You and I did not build one one-millionth of the resources on which we depend to do whatever it is we do. It is mindless beyond belief for Obama to suggest only the government allows entrepreneurs to do things, and equally mindless of the defenders of entrepreneurs to think they do things all by themselves. And in line with one of my points far up above in my first post, among those most offended by that arrogance are the workers in any business who help the entrepreneur build thins every bit as much as he helps them.

As far as I can tell, Althouse's argument is that Rush was trying to strum the mystic chords of racism that lie deep w/in us, by playing the video multiple times. She knows that he played the video multiple times b/c she listened to the entire 3-hour program.

Has she considered the possibility that many or most of Rush's listeners don't have jobs that allow them to sit and listen to the entirety of his program every day? Has she also considered the possibility that Rush designs his program with this in mind, so that he replays the stuff he wants to build his program around that day?

I think what Ms. Althouse is trying to do here is put some fire in the bellies of complacent/nervous Romney supporters. As the number of commenters reflects, she's succeeding wildly. For once I agree with Crack. Many of you can't see when you're being manipulated for effect.

There is right or wrong, there are no "good" arguments, evidence means nothing - there is only domination.

That's why I got so turned off when Ann admitted to directing blog traffic a few days ago:

She, Glenn Reynolds, and all the rest, are determining who and what are worthy of being seen and heard. How can they be wrong in such a situation? She voted for Scott Walker, so she can't be against conservatives, but I - who treat belief systems equally - can be called a "bigot" here, every day, and she and Meade say nothing. Glenn Reynolds can block me, while spewing nonsense, and she and Meade not only say nothing but she'll guest blog there. I can attacked, here, in every way possible - including racially - and she and Meade say nothing.

Naw, let her go screaming "racist" at everybody, I've stopped caring. Why? Because of this one statement:

If she doesn't care that I - the "modern" post-racial black man she supposedly feels so much for - have almost been driven crazy by being made to endure the Althouse blog persecution, Glenn Reynolds-inspired side-lining, and the general state of madness, in the white world she enjoys and that I've tried to navigate, then I can enjoy watching her, too, pay a price for it.

I don't have a masochistic bone in my body, and so, will be anybody's personal pin cushion - not here, not ever.

Chip S.I think that's right. I know a lot of people who listen to Rush over the lunch hour. They want to hear his monologue. When lunch is over, it's back to work. I even know people on the left who do this. How many people hang in for all 3 hours? Again, most people probably do not. I know I never listen to 3 hours of Rush. I only listen if I happen to be in the car commuting somewhere. I have a radio in my office, but I rarely turn it on. I find it too much of a distraction.

Jon B, your "You didn't build that" argument has been discussed here at great length, back when it was a current topic. You'll find numerous cogent analyses of the fallacies in your argument in the archives.

This video clip is not about the lavishness of the welfare state. For Chrissake, it's only a phone. There are two points being made by the clip: (1) It's astonishing and a bit depressing to see the relative importance some (many?) voters place on the smallest freebies they get from Uncle Sugar relative to the weight they place on broader national issues; (2) It's classic machine politics to get this particular freebie called an "Obamaphone," since (a) taxpayers are paying for it and (b) he didn't have anything to do w/ creating the policy.

Not even going to get into "this video is racist" It's patently absurd to call it such. Just disregard this as stupidity.

What I am fascinated by is how much the liberal left is morphing into the "Arab Spring" equating racism, sexism, etc, with blasphemy. And they get more and more violent in their reactions, just as the Arab Spring.

There is no God but abortion, and Zero is its Prophet.

Ps,

Much like the Arab moderates go along with their Jihadis, the Independents go along with the Liberals, because really, they are not very smart, even if they DO teach law.

Not often do you get a double down on "piss off your entire commenatriat by basically calling their political side unreformable racists".

Because have no doubt, when the professor says she's offput by what the Mitt Romney side is trying to demonstrate in that video, it's about the racism we fail to acknowledge, and therefore, all of us further in the national discourse.

And she will have no truck with any politician who represents racism, knowingly or unknowingly.

Jon Burack said...Rialby,Come out of your boilerplate catch phrases and smell the roses. Getting a tax break or subsidy is not government taking less from you, it is government taking less from you so it can take MORE from your competitors or others. It is giving you an unfair edge. Yes, that should bother you as a conservative. It actually is a big deal to Paul Ryan, though he has not forcefully owned up to. As for paying into SS, Medicare, etc., this is a joke. Current recipients get back FAR more than they paid in and will for some time.

I suspected it before, but I think Althouse may be an Obama voter this time around.

Heart and feelings, and the desire to be liked could be overriding all the evidence that Obama has severely, and will continue to severely infringe upon economic and political liberties and other things she cares about.

Along as we are goin down this route, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Maher, and all sorts of other despicable and low characters voted for Obama in 2008 and will do so again in 2012. I presume this braindead welfare queen is one of them. So, purveyors of what Althouse also likes to call "bullshit" are actively campaigning for him under the guise of reporting the news.

Obama needs to get out in front of these people and take control of his campaign, if you ask me.

What Boehner said:"This election is about economics... These groups have been hit the hardest. They may not show up and vote for our candidate but I’d suggest to you they won’t show up and vote for the president either.”

Elspeth's bad faith interpretation:

"Boehner Says Out Loud He Hopes Blacks and Latinos 'Won't Show Up' This Election.

Among the many things that perplex me about this thread is why so many seem to care who Ann is going to vote for. I do not really care who Ann is going to vote for and would be happy if I never found out. Why is that of any relevance at all?

I certainly don't agree with everything Ann posts but she almost always makes a salient point worth pondering. Every so often though, she just gets one howlingly wrong, so far off base that she gets flooded with more comments than usual with people banging their head against the keyboard trying to explain what she's not seeing. And she never ever gets it. It's easy to view her commentariat as just a bunch of conservatives peppered with a few token liberals and when her 'cruel neutrality' rears its head they (the conservatives) go crazy, but I think it's more than that. She does have a bit of intellectual arrogance that creates a blind spot sometimes. That's usually when she starts to go into the professor mode, instructing us to "really think about" this or that.

So here's a bit of table-turning. Ann, if a hundred people came up to you and told you (some politely, some rudely) that your breath was bad and you couldn't smell it, would you dismiss them all as being wrong? Because this is sort of the intellectual version of that. Ann, I want you to really think about what you may be missing. You've already established that you see racism in the way the video is being used and that it's off-putting to you. Now consider that A) maybe there really isn't any racism other than what you're projecting onto it, or B) maybe there is an element of race to the video's relevance but it's justified because the entitlement mentality that it portrays has a significant racial element to it.

"but [Romney] needs to be a more dominant figure in his own campaign. Voters need to associate him with a clear and compelling message that doesn't feel connected to this racial material coming from other sources."

For that to happen he needs an at least neutral media to help him get his message out.

I want to talk about the DEBT! The coming financial disaster is going to do more damage to this country and its people than any racist nonsense. When this county is in economic meltdown, no body will even remember this.

A married couple retiring last year, after both spouses earned average lifetime wages, paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.

Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Most high-income workers started getting less in benefits than they paid in taxes in the 1990s, according to data from the Social Security Administration.

Professor, I'm pretty sure you've already wasted one vote trying to heal the racial wounds of the country...how did that work out? Insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results. How could reelecting Obama possibly help address the supposed racism you see here?

As Bill Clinton says, Obama and Patrick Duval were designer candidates made up to tap politically into the great northern white guilt emotions from allowing suffering of black saints in the South for 100 years, just as the GAR once tapped politically into the emotions from northern saints sufferings as Yank soldiers' for 4 bloody years.

The GAR incited "emotion" went on to control America's national political votes for 50 years.

Will we be free of that Axelrod designed trap in just 4 years? Stay tuned.

If Althouse had such a need to be liked she wouldn't have. Even her communities most prominent contrarian during the protests/recall. Really people, wake up to what's happening here. OMG, I sound like Crack.

It's almost like our clever host has spent the last 4-years preparing the ground for this day. She provided a popular, respectable forum for chickenhawk teabaggers to vent their estrogen-laced, emotional baggage in comfort and safety.

Once they all gathered like sheep into a narrow gully to get another drink of Kool-Aid, WHAM. The virtual Claymore's have slaughtered the teenie weenie egos in one fell swoop.

Nothing's left of them except the boastful bleating from the last survivors drowning in an evolutionary cul de sac.

The point of the video -- and the reason Drudge and Limbaugh hyped it -- is to say, this is what Obama voters look like: black, poor, stupid, and after your money.

Nope. That's on Elspeth Reeve (and on you too since you cite it so approvingly). Nobody said anything about race, 'cept youse guys.

Rather, put it this way: "What conservatives are saying is, and the point of the video -- and the reason Drudge and Limbaugh hyped it -- is to say, this is what Obama voters look like: some poor, some stupid, and most after your money and freebies."

You guys imputed race, and you need to do a little more self-reflection as to why you did.

The George Romney photo is more than exposition to prove a point; it actually goes a long way to understand how Boomers like Althouse think.

There are two kinds of people in this world (humour me): a person who wishes everything they do to make a statement about the kind of person they are, and those who don't care about making statements.

This is why some people buy Rolexes and Beemers, iPhones and Macbooks...and vote for Obama (though not necessarily the same person): they wish to let others know at a glance what they are. Rich / Intellectual / Trendy / Enlightened.

In politics there is only one question that needs asking about a choice between voting for a black man versus a white man running for US President:

ARE YOU ON THE SIDE OF THE ANGELS OR NOT?

There is no way on earth someone like Althouse will ever vote for McCain or Romney over Obama. It's like marching AGAINST Civil Rights.

This is just depressing... How do you even attempt a conversation with someone that has all these assumptions about you and your beliefs or political leanings?

Take the writer of that article. This is an article of faith to her. Nothing will ever prove her wrong. I could bring her to my house, for a year! and she'd probably still leave thinking that deep inside we're all racists.

And now Ann. It might sound pathetic but my several daily visits to this blog were due to this love of conversation about things that I might agree with or not. But this crosses a line.

There is no good-faith argumentation anymore.

I come to the table holding a sign that says I MIGHT BE WRONG, and in a good-faith conversation I expect the same from the person facing me. But this has been a slap on the face. Whatever I might say or argue against the intrinsic racism in the reaction to that video is simply invalid, emotional, blinded, unserious, etc. And all because of what? An election? Candidates that none of us know personally but we are still willing to bet our consciences for?

And this idea that "you don't see it, but..." is the final word of an argument can never be part of a rational conversation.

Jon Burack has made the salient points of this whole unfortunate episode.

My own point is, until we stop welfare to corporations who do not provide jobs, we are hypocrites for expounding on the welfare mentality of the poor and minorities. Yes Limbaugh was racist and yes it was ugly.

I'm surprised Althouse can listen to this person daily and now first feel revulsion. She is stating a fact, that undecided voters are going to vote emotionally and vote for those they identify with more. It stands to reason that if they are disgusted by the Limbaugh types who many see as representative of the R party, then this person is responsible for losing independent votes for his party and candidate. It's time Limbaugh took responsibility for his own radio show and how it affects this election.

>> Among the many things that perplex me about this thread is why so many seem to care who Ann is going to vote for. I do not really care who Ann is going to vote for and would be happy if I never found out. Why is that of any relevance at all? <<

It's part of the discussion because Althouse made it part of the discussion when she claimed to be repulsed by Romney because a radio entertainer Rush played the audio of a video.

She is not "repulsed" by Romney's policy considerations that will affect the economy, taxes, regulations, the national debt, national security, etc. No, she's repulsed by Romney because a guy on the radio played the audio portion of a video.

"...but Obama needs to be a more dominant figure in his own administration. Voters need to associate him with a clear and compelling message that doesn't pass on a mountain of debt and responsabilities to the next generation."

"It is also a sign you do not really understand honestly the nature of the political crisis through which we are living and do not have a thing to offer in the way of a way out."

Concur. And racism is not the issue in that video and all it stands for, which is stupendously huge and even monstrous, namely, the demonic wretchedness of a huge demographic in the middle of American life. A wretchedness so powerful and omnipresent it has ripped the nation to pieces, not in half, to pieces. Many are exploiting that division, in several directions, to several ends. It's unAmerican to do that.

That division is the issue. Anyone compelling or fostering it is evil acting. Whoever let or made matters come to this pass, it doesn't matter now. Blame can be pointed pretty much everywhere, especially in the mirror. What's going to end or at least radically reduce the wretchedness of that demographic and the drive for division created by it?

The Elspeth Reeves of the world and our ridiculous biased press are going to force 4 more years of economic disaster on us.

Don't be too depressed. Sure, it's a pain in the ass for us here at Althouse to have to deal with crapola like this, but if it gets any wider currency the benefit will be to our side. Most people are as sick of this shit as we are.

Claire McCaskill(D-MO) claims to be a moderate, but voted with Obama and the radicals 100% of the time.No no - let's focus on 6 seconds of something that doesn’t matter. Something that a guy has groveled and apologized for ad nauseum. Something and has no bearing on anything that matters while our nation swirls down into a corrupt economic abyss.

This line of argument wants to change the subject to something, anything other than race.

Bite me, Racist. And fuck you while you're biting me. And go ahead and die while you're biting me and fucking yourself, Racist. That's it, bite me and die from fucking yourself. No wait wait wait, don't bite me, I don't want that. No. Don't bite me, Racist. Just go away and vote for your littl e as s hole xxxxxx candidate who parlays OUR phones and phone service to HIS phones and phone service. That has to be an ACORN thing. In fact, you might even qualify. Go get your phone provided by us phone bill paying customers that has painted on the side of it OBAMAphone! And you too can gots your Obamaphone.

So Emily - were you just about ready to vote for Romney when mean old racist Rush scared you way like a delicate little bunny?

When you say "stop welfare to corporations who do not provide jobs" do you mean like - stop the Obama administration from giving huge sums of tax payer funded government backed loans to billionaires who start fake solar businesses? Like billionaire Pat Stryker (Abound Solar) and the Obama supporters at Solyndra?

Once they all gathered like sheep into a narrow gully to get another drink of Kool-Aid, WHAM. The virtual Claymore's have slaughtered the teenie weenie egos in one fell swoop. Nothing's left of them except the boastful bleating from the last survivors drowning in an evolutionary cul de sac.

A lot of flowery words to prove that you're just the mean kid with the magnifying glass shining on ants. You actually rubbed one out after typing that, didn't you?

I live on the south side of Chicago (about 1.5 miles from the Obama's home, actually), and it would not be much of an exaggeration to call it a war zone. There are children and young adults being shot on a daily basis. Less than two weeks ago, a teenager was the victim of a drive-by in sight of my front window. And, yet, our host is more interested in talking about the color of their skin, and the implications of that on our collective psyche, than in electing officials who might reform the economy, the feckless police unions, and the culture of victimhood that pervades this area and countless urban centers across America. That would be real change. That would be actual healing. Althouse, come to your senses.

If there are multiple videos with different people expressing the same message, in the same way - but Rush selected only the video with a minority - then you may have a point. Otherwise, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - and people are reacting to her message & actions. Just like people are reacting to what you wrote, because of your message - not because you are white or a woman or older, etc.

If there are multiple videos with different people expressing the same message, in the same way - but Rush selected only the video with a minority

Last time I looked the radio didn't have visuals. If you are listening to the video, how do you determine that the woman is a minority?

What difference does that make anyway. She is a welfare slug who wants all the "free" Obama goodies that are paid for by the rest of us. I don't care what color skin she is wearing.....she is a waste of skin.

Otherwise, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - and people are reacting to her message & actions. Just like people are reacting to what you wrote, because of your message - not because you are white or a woman or older, etc.

If there are multiple videos with different people expressing the same message, in the same way - but Rush selected only the video with a minority - then you may have a point. Otherwise, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - and people are reacting to her message & actions. Just like people are reacting to what you wrote, because of your message - not because you are white or a woman or older, etc.

Coupon Mom, one of the best, most sensible commenters I've seen here, wrote the following in the zillion comment thread below. I'm reposting it (in part) because I think it's a shame to let a gem go to waste:

Hey guys, I don't know about staying here. The blogs I read span the ideological spectrum but I don't like being lied to...Hate is a strong word, but I HATE when people diminish what REAL racism is. I have four children and I don't want them to live in a world where anyone would judge them for having brown skin. My sons are honor students, I would never want someone clutching their purse because they walked by. My sons classmates aren't innately superior to my children. My child has the highest 5th grade reading score, and my other child is 2nd in math.

What people like Althouse are doing is dangerous. Let's talk about racism I have no problem with that. Let's talk about a little black girl denied the opportunity to use her apt. pool becuase of a racist community manager.

This is not how I wanted to spend my Saturday morning. Just a message to you "helpful" white liberals. I'm a human being, I am more than the color of my skin. I love everything about me and I am not ashamed, all I want is to be treated as an EQUAL American. I don't need you to hold my hand through life. America IS the land of opportunity.

9/29/12 7:09 AM

Of course, Coupon Mom isn't a UW Madison professor, so what does she know? Perhaps Althouse should challenge her to "think more deeply."

OK, lets go with your theory. That seeing a dirt-ignorant black woman dripping with a sense of entitlement will alienate blacks and "middle of the road, well to do white women who still think of Selma! "That won't affect the black vote margin because blacks vote on skin color, and Obama has 96% of their vote anyways.And you lose a certain amount of guilty white women....

But you have to consider how this plays out with Asians, working class whites, and hispanics that Dems have drummed a steady "Obama stands with the noble working man who just wants a good job and not being taken advantage of"...that don't get free ObamaPhones, don't have 4 of their 5 children on Social Security diability with the 5th due to start collecting as soon as he gets out of Juvie for assaulting a fellow student...don't live in free housing, worry about their copays or if unemployed and not a welfare family worry because they have no insurance at all??People never on food stamps like ObamaPhone woman has been all her life...Now once again trying to decipher if like Dolt Joe Biden says, "Obama stands with the working man" or if he really stands with the parasites.

Those whites, Asians, hispanics hit with taxes or worried they soon will be ---to pay for ObamaPhone woman's bills..Is not the ObamaPhone woman in effect crowing about taking advantage of them??

And if the Republicans going with ObamaPhone woman are using a little reverse class warfare...remember that the Democrats have been blatantly using identity politics targeting their race, gender, sex preference favorites and hammering Republicans as not "being for women", not "being for blacks", not "being for the poor, the hispanic, the gay wedding caterer, the once-illegals".

Grow up Althouse!

Democrats have been doing full out race and class warfare against Republicans ever since the Tea Party people surprised them.And they would be playing the civil liberties card, anti-military card, Shredding the Constitution card, and the Weeping over coffins of the Fallen Heroes card but for Obama's little problems in those areas of exploiting divisions in America.

All I know is Reagan got us out of the mess that was Jimmy Carter. Put aside all the dog bones the media are tossing in every direction to distract. Focus on competence. I'll take my chances with Romney on that one.

I notice you left out another Urban institute estimate, this from a piece on Medicare in National Affairs:

"According to calculations published earlier this year by Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute, the average two-earner married couple retiring in 2010 had paid $109,000 in Medicare taxes while working, but will receive $343,000 in benefits during retirement. A similar couple retiring in 2030 will have paid $167,000 in taxes and will receive $530,000 in benefits."

Chip STelling me a point I made has been refuted by a discussion from a previous thread here? I am supposed to take that seriously as a critique. I have better things to do, thanks.

There is still no argument or answer in the text. She's merely insisting that you cant criticize moochers if they happen to be black.

The video's subject wasn't picked out because she "happens to be black," she was picked out because she is black.

Assertion without evidence. When we get into intention reading territory, we can as well ask Chris Matthews about all these dog whistles he's constantly hearing. If you have to redefine your opponents argument until it has no resemblance to what he actually said, your just composing your very own, alternate and politically comfortable reality. Quite orwellian, but this is todays left. And todays Althouse.

Longtime lurker here (I think I've commented once in all the years I've been reading this blog). AA's original post on this subject had a weirdly deja-vu feeling about it - then I suddenly remembered what it reminded me of: Charles Johnson (LGF)suddenly going off his nut in 2008. And the more his regular commenters said "Wait, what??", the more he posted about how if they (people he until that point had respected) couldn't see what he was seeing, they were suffering from false consciousness or something. Weirdest thing I ever so on the internet, and I thought I'd seen a lot.

This is the problem that Republicans have with people like me. I agree with them about the economy and fiscal stuff, except that i might like to see a modest increase in government revenue by lowering taxes on investment/savings and increasing taxes on consumption. I also share Republicans' concern about the power of government and how growing entitlement enhances that power.

Unfortunately, they lose me because the bulk of their base really does not give a shit about the economy, and does not fear government power. They want to use the power of government against people they do not like.

Believe me, the Republican party has not changed since Reconstruction. The base is white Protestants in small towns. They fear people of other religions. They fear cities. They fear people of a different culture. They fear culture itself. A hundred years ago the GOP base was against an Irish Catholic New Yorker and was not ashamed to align itself with the Klan to stop hime.

Now it is immigrants, gays, and nonwhites. It is still the same. Romney is not dumb. He knows this, but he thinks he needs that bigot vote. He knows those small town Prods don't think much of him because of his religion. He panders to them to get elected.

Will Romney abandon that base once elected? Who knows? Who wants to take the chance?

Stick with 0bama. Maybe he will have more "flexibility" when reelected. An encouraging sign is Rahm Emanuel taking on the teachers' union. Whatever you do, do not put those bigots in power.

I really have no idea what point you think you're making with this quote:

"...the average two-earner married couple retiring in 2010 had paid $109,000 in Medicare taxes while working, but will receive $343,000 in benefits during retirement. A similar couple retiring in 2030 will have paid $167,000 in taxes and will receive $530,000 in benefits."

but all it does is demonstrate why Medicare is on an unsustainable path.

It's almost like our clever host has spent the last 4-years preparing the ground for this day. She provided a popular, respectable forum for chickenhawk teabaggers to vent their estrogen-laced, emotional baggage in comfort and safety.

Once they all gathered like sheep into a narrow gully to get another drink of Kool-Aid, WHAM. The virtual Claymore's have slaughtered the teenie weenie egos in one fell swoop.

Nothing's left of them except the boastful bleating from the last survivors drowning in an evolutionary cul de sac.

Is this a Bulwer-Lytton submission? Because if it is, it's pretty damned good. I like your chances.

Althouse wrote:In fact, as I said in my post yesterday, what I feel happening to me emotionally — and what I'm guessing may happen to other middle-of-the-road types like me — is repulsion away from the Romney side. It's not Romney's fault, he can't control what his supporters say in their efforts to promote him, but he needs to be a more dominant figure in his own campaign.

Althouse, you are not a serious person.You are guided solely by your emotions, and frankly you are falling into the same racism playbook that Obama and the dems have been running with since the 60's. And you show that you are the dumber for it.WHY IS THIS RACIST? If this were a white redneck talking about how Obama was a muslim would it be wrong to higlight the video because he was white? Would it not be white race baiting? Is it not racist to say that the only representations of blacks that we can see are of smart blacks, otherwise it's race baiting?

Or, put another way, thinking that everyone has the same set of values and areas of focus, so that if something happens, clearly it is about that precise set of values.

She thinks about race a lot, so its clearly about race. Sadly, the reality of our country made so many things about race--things that had utterly nothing to do with race--like eating and drinking and basic human rights--that there's this reverberation that everything is about race.

It is about culture, but that's different than race--so that this video was really about culture many would make it equivalent to race. But that culture that is being critiqued is represented in poor white cultures as well. Curiously not as much in poor hispanic or poor asian cultures--as there is a tremendous work ethic there. It's a culture of dependency, where the partnership with the government not drives assumptions of handouts but also assumptions of marriage and family. It's a culture represented in various races--but in our country it's primarily poor whites and poor blacks. That it's not a racial thing can be easily also seen in how African or Caribbean immigrants tend to have a very different sort of attitude--likewise showing a strong work ethic and self-motivation.

Literally nothing can be done or said that can help people who prioritize race to understand that not everyone thinks in those terms. Only time can heal that.

Growing up in Southern California, diversity was assumed for me. Pick a culture or a race and there were representatives in my elementary school. It was only when I got to college--in the Midwest, natch--that people were doing surveys and making a big deal about racial conversations, that I first realized that some people saw the whole world through the lens of race. I mean I had heard of racism, had friends experience elements of it, but never was provoked to think racially until people insisted that it be a defining issue for everyone.

There definitely are racists in the world, and racism is still a huge issue. The trouble is that a lot of real racists hate that element in themselves and so become activists against racism--yet because it is such a driving element of their own worldview they insist everyone has a problem with it.

For some people, however, it's just not the first thing they see--and saying that it is the first thing that must be seen is baffling and offensive.

Meanwhile, it likewise dilutes the real issues of racism while at the same time enforcing negative cultural behaviors as somehow hallmarks of racial identity.

Reality yields to perception and perpetual profit. A selective history will always color our effort to address the issues. Individual dignity will be denigrated in the name of "justice." In fact, that is the principle of contemporary "progress." Well, that, and involuntary redistribution schemes in order to advance individual and cooperative political, economic, and social ambitions.

A large minority of Americans are not prepared to address causes and would rather persist in treating symptoms, manufactured and real. They seem to be captured by and enduring association with their past. This may change with one or two succeeding generations, or it may be sustained through institutional and cultural corruption.

In the meantime, as a large number of Americans remain obsessed with incidental features, including skin color, further criticism can be directed against the greed of the rich and poor alike, but with a pale and selective coloring. That should satisfy the emotional needs of people who are challenged to recognize individual dignity.